1. Field of Application
This invention relates to authentication of the “SOURCE” of BRANDS, and, more particularly, to a System and components for globally and readily providing “SOURCE” authentication for BRANDS.
2. Description of the Prior Art
A BRAND is something a supplier of goods and/or services associates with their goods and/or services to indicate that they are the “SOURCE” for those intending to acquire such goods and/or avail themselves of such services and to distinguish their goods and/or services from those of competitors.
A BRAND (often otherwise sometimes referred to as a trademark, or service mark) may comprise any word, name, phrase, symbol, design or device or any combination of words, names, phrases, symbols, designs or devices which identifies and distinguishes the “SOURCE” (such as the manufacturer, retailer, provider, etc.) of the goods or services of one entity from those of another entity.
BRANDS are used by an entity, in connection with a product or products, or service or services, to help consumers (actual or intended purchasers, and/or users) select the particular product(s) and/or service(s) that are provided by a selected entity that the respective consumer prefers to be the “SOURCE” (owner, licensee, provider, manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, etc) for a particular product, or service. The BRAND thus distinguishes the selected product, or service, from the products, or services, of competitors that the consumer does not desire to be the provider. BRANDS indicate to consumers that a product, or service, comes from a “SOURCE”, even if the name of the “SOURCE” is unknown to the consumer. BRANDS also function to indicate quality and reputation, thus creating good will in the proprietor (owner, “SOURCE”) of the BRAND and BRANDED product and/or service.
Many entities or parties (corporations, partnerships, individuals, associations, etc.) spend considerable amounts, possibly millions, in advertising and other marketing efforts to create at least one, and possibly many, BRAND names; and to generate good will in and to each and every BRAND name and “SOURCE”. In some cases, further amounts (here again possibly millions) are often spent in developing products and/or services to be marketed under such BRAND names. Successful BRAND names represent a valuable asset of an entity (as the “SOURCE” of the BRAND), and are often the focus of great efforts undertaken to police the proper and authorized use of such BRAND names. Despite such efforts, successful BRAND names have been wrongfully exploited for years by unscrupulous parties such as illegal manufacturers and resellers of counterfeit and/or stolen and diverted products attempting to hood-wink the public into thinking that the goods and/or services emanate from the true “SOURCE”. High price luxury type goods in particular have been, and continue to be, subjected to widespread counterfeiting, theft and diversion. The unauthorized display of “AUTHORIZED” dealer, servicer, etc., and the like, at a place of business, in phone directories, advertising, on web sites and/or other business endeavors has also proven to be detrimental to a BRAND “SOURCE”s reputation and income.
The legitimate use of BRANDS (trademarks and service marks) benefits the consuming public as well as the merchant or manufacturer of a product, or provider of a service. For the merchant or manufacturer, each BRAND may serve as an advertising tool, facilitating repeat sales and the successful marketing of new products and services by the BRAND “SOURCE”. Individual consumers rely on BRANDS to distinguish among competing products, services and BRAND “SOURCES”, and to represent a certain level of quality they have come to expect when purchasing products or services with which a particular BRAND is used or emanating from a particular BRAND “SOURCE”. By protecting BRANDS, several broader goals are furthered as well. BRANDS foster competition and the maintenance of quality by securing to the provider (the BRAND “SOURCE”) the benefits of good reputation. Protecting BRANDS also serves to guard the public from inadvertent or intentional use of confusing or misleading BRANDS.
The actual lost sales and profits, and loss of taxes to governments, attributed to wrongful activities (counterfeiting, theft, diversion, knock-offs, etc.) is but one aspect of the problem. An often more serious result is the damage done to the good name and reputation of the BRAND owner (“SOURCE”) especially when inferior counterfeited merchandise is sold as genuine. In an effort to counteract the problem, BRAND name owners often aggressively pursue counterfeiters, and introduce programs intended to eliminate or at least reduce such illegal activities. While some programs have met rather limited short term success, the end rewards to the wrongdoers are often so large that the programs themselves have been copied.
According to one such program, BRAND authenticating holographs are incorporated into either the product packaging or a swing tag, or placed on the packaging or product in the form of a self-adhesive decal. While once considered a novel and innovative approach, holograph technology is now well known, and the cost of entry into the holograph manufacturing industry is low. In today's market, counterfeit holographs are commonplace. Thus the use of holograms has not proved effective to stem the problem, especially for the consumer at the time and point of sale,
In another anti-counterfeiting program, a hidden authenticating device (such as one that incorporates RFID technology, or special threads or a chemical) is incorporated into the product. This approach is problematic, as it is generally difficult to control and lacks standardization with regard to where to place the device. While the hidden device is detectable by field inspectors checking a reseller's inventory, consumers are generally unaware of the device, and whether or not the BRAND “source” of the merchandise is genuine and authenticated as such. A still further approach uses moving image labels (including 3D) typically manufactured with a paper printing image including PVC reflectors. This method, however, is often unsuitable for the intended goods or services. Furthermore, the technology is well known, thus leading to the same problems realized from holographs.
Some programs utilize a multi-layer approach to product security with both overt and covert types of identifiers incorporated into the product and/or its packaging. However not only does this add unacceptably to the product cost but it does not seem to provide a consumer with BRAND “source” authentication, especially at the time and point of sale.
The use of serial numbers to track, and hopefully control, product security has proved helpful for vehicles as VIN (Vehicle Identification) Numbers, and also for product warranty purposes. But, serial numbering alone does not seem to be an effective BRAND “source” authenticator for the consumer as they do not currently have ready access to the identifying data base, or any indicator that authentication is available to them, at the time and point of sale. Systems, such as those shown in U.S. Pat. No. 5,521,815 for “Uniform System For Verifying and tracking Articles of Value” and in U.S. Pat. No. 6,076,064 for “Uniform System For Verifying And Tracking The Title of Articles or Objects of Value” are further examples of complex and expensive product security systems that require access to data bases, through computer terminals, to verify product security and would prove cumbersome to a consumer at the time and place of sale and, as such unacceptable.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,099,930 for “Methods and Marking Digital Compact Discs As A Means To Determine its authenticity” utilizes near infrared flurophores; but, requires a protective cover layer which would not only be unacceptably detrimental to the aesthetics of the product but might, as well, be unusable for items of jewelry and the like. U.S. Pat. No. 6,533,180 for “Security Label and Method of Use” also only provides an obtrusive and unacceptable label that must be attached to the product; while U.S. Pat. No. 6,578,112 requires special buttons with a complex and relatively expensive sewing machine to attach the buttons with a relatively complex stitch. In addition none of available systems serve to establish communication between the party seeking authentication of the BRAND and the BRAND “SOURCE” for purposes of marketing the same and other products and/or services of the BRAND “SOURCE” and otherwise provide to the BRAND “SOURCE” information pertinent to the whereabouts and product and other interests, and biographic information, of the party making the inquiry.